Karl Marx was a late 19th Century thinker. He saw class as being the central category for analysing social relation and social struggles. This is because he believed that class struggles drive the social changes in our societies ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’. (Marx, Engels, 1848, pg.8) He viewed class objectively, defining it by the ownership of property. The class struggle’s which Marx refers to above is that of the Bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and the proletariat, who sell their labour.
In fact Conservatism has often been described as chameleon like, in that it changes its appearance according to the dominant political environment at a given time. In the 19th century, when liberalism was its main opponent, conservatism adopted an organic vision of society, seeing it as a living entity and expecting people to demonstrate a sense of responsibility towards each other. When socialism came to the forefront, conservative changed course and began to emphasise the virtues of free markets and individualism to combat collectivist ideas. Such an adaptable movement cannot be described as ideological in nature. It is common to view conservatives as two strands of government the ‘wets’ and the ‘dry’s’, wets are seen to be more collectivist and believe in a greater role of government, such as planning or intervention, whereas dry’s are more neo-liberal,
It wasn’t until shortly after his death that Karl Marx’s ideology began to significantly influence socialist movements. Although relatively unknown during his lifetime he has become one of the fundamental economic and sociological figures of the modern era. Many of his theories and insights into the way society functions are still relevant in the expanding capitalist society that exists today. Marx was very critical of capitalism and the division in society between the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes, attempting to highlight the injustice and exploitation of the working class by the wealthy upper and middle class. Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism.
All three Revolutions played significant part in what came to be a significantly liberalist Europe, including Industrialisation. This essay will explain just in what way the Revolutions and Industrialisation led to the overall rise of liberal government in Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The French Revolution marks the beginning of the liberal movement taking shape in Europe. Not only was the monarchy in crisis (on the verge of bankruptcy after extreme spending and France’s Involvement in the American Revolution), but the people of France were also victim of poor harvest, the worst of which were in 1775 but were still significantly bad in both 1787 and 1788 (Merriman, 2004). On top of there being a scarcity of resources, the people of France were subject to also having to pay high costs for grain, a staple food in France.
Mary Shelley’s gothic promethean novel, Frankenstein (1818), was released during the industrial revolution as romanticism was thriving, while Ridley Scott’s futuristic sci-fi Blade runner (1992) grew with the dawning of a capitalistic increasingly globalised and technologically driven society. The comparative study of these texts encompasses themes of humanity and playing God through a tone of moral warning and allows the responder to explore how similar content in different contexts will reflect changing, but also constant values. Through the use of filmic techniques, Scott demonstrates how nature and religion are absent in a world overrun by consumerism and technology. Due to her context, Shelley alternatively uses imagery and allusions to hint at the consequences humanity will suffer if they try to better God through the misuse of science and the corruption of nature. Both of these texts reflect the distinctive contexts in which they were written; although separated by over 100 years of history, they still present similar issues and dilemmas which affected the form and features of the individual texts.
It’s the late 19th Century and people are living in a rapidly industrializing America. They view the industrial leaders changing the place they live in, for better and for worse with mixed feelings. They characterize these leaders as “industrial statesmen” and “robber barons” depending on the leader’s actions and reputation. This is not entirely justifiable, because some of the wealthy and politically active can be considered both industrial statesmen, and robber barons, and also, not all of the leaders had the same methods and behavior. In order to justify characterizing the industrial leaders to any extent, one must first define the terms that the industrial leaders are to be categorized under.
Social Darwinism in the Gilded Age by Rebecca Young Social Darwinism and its ideologies were a tragedy in the human society. These ideas of “survival of the fittest” and evolution in human societies were applied to social issues in the late 19th century at the time of the Gilded Age industrialist. This was a period in which notions of “fitness”, competition, and natural selection were theories supported by the Social Darwinists who, from a micro-level, regarded individuals in human society and from the macro-level, regarded the industrial corporations in society. The term “Social Darwinism” was first coined by economists based on Darwin’s theories of evolution. As described in the text, J.P. Morgan desired power and control as opposed to gaining wealth.
P1- Explain the principle Sociological perspectives In this assignment I am going to describe the 6 different principles of sociological perspective’s. Marxism- The Marxist approach was first developed by Karl Marx in 1818-1883. He was known for critizing the capitalistic system as permitting a diminishing number of capailists to appreciate the benefits of improved industrial methods. While the labouring class was left in dependency, As well as being a conflict model it is said that the individual behaviour was shaped by society. He said that there were two social classes; the bourgeoisie (ruling class) were the powerful social class who owned factories and land.
‘Compare and contrast the function of class in Wuthering Heights and Great Expectations.’ In this essay I will be looking at Charles Dickens 1860 novel Great expectations and Emily Bronte 1847 Wuthering Heights. Both Novels where written in the Victorian Era when class was one of up most important factors in society. The early nineteenth century saw the beginning of the industrial revolution. A lot was changing at that time as old money was being contested with new money. A new breed of middle and upper class where fighting their way into the limelight, and seeking to be social accepted.
Capitalism brought about the industrialisation of modern society, this idea is favoured by Marxists but postmodernists argue that society is not as simple as this. Postmodernism has emerged since the 1970s, in a postmodern society we are defined by what we consume society is not simply one thing but an unstable, fragmented, media saturated global village where image and reality are indistinguishable. Foucault argues that there are no objective criteria that we can use to prove whether a theory is true or false and if we cannot guarantee if knowledge is correct we cannot use it to improve society this view is known as anti foundationalism. Anti foundationalism is based on two key concepts, the enlightenment of achieving progress through true scientific knowledge and any all embracing theory that claims to have the absolute truth about how to create a better society such as Marxism however it is a meta- narrative and is just someone’s version of reality and it is not necessarily the truth so there is no need to accept the claims that the theory makes Postmodernists a reject meta narratives such as Marxism because they have helped create oppressive totalitarian states that have impose their version of the truth on people for example the former soviet union in Russia. Because they believe that all accounts of reality are equally valid so we should therefore recognise and celebrate diversity rather than imposing one